Print

Print


Tom's response probably comes closest to how we're thinking of current 
LCCNs with respect to BIBFRAME.  They provide a useful pointer to the 
record from which we derived BIBFRAME Works and Instances.  We have 
found that the LCCN (or, again, any other traditional description 
identifier) to be an unreliable identifier *within* the BIBFRAME space 
*for* a single BIBFRAME resource.

And, as Tom noted, we absolutely capture the information in order to 
understand the BIBFRAME resource's ancestry.

Yours,
Kevin




On 01/25/2013 09:04 AM, Tom Emerson wrote:
> Jerri Swinehart writes:
>> Would we need LCCNs in a linked data space? I mean if there are no
>> more print cards and individual records (like we have now) why would
>> we need an LCCN?
>
> I think we do need them in order to reference older, unconverted MARC
> records that may exist. While there is a (I presume) a desire to get rid
> of individual MARC records, the fact of the matter is we will need to
> support these for the foreseeable future. I think this is especially
> true for vendors like EBSCO where we may want to integrate existing
> catalogs with more recent linked data. (Though it must be said I am not
> speaking for EP in this forum.)
>
>      -tree
>
> --
> Tom Emerson
> Principal Software Engineer - Search
> EBSCO Publishing
> [log in to unmask]
>